On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 10:43, Erwin Rol wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 13:45 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > I just wanted to reiterate the importance of Bochs and PearPC
> > to RTEMS. Right now, each RTEMS user/developer has access to
> > a limited set of test platforms. Often those platforms
> > have no networking, disk storage, or graphics at all.
> I think the first stab would be BSP's for both of them ? Even though
> bochs would not really need a BSP, i think it is better when it does
> have its own BSP. Can anybody give reason why it should
Integration into the source-tree, separation from real world BSPs,
possibility of adding simulator specific drivers/hacks/setups etc.
It's the approach being used by other simulator BSP's ;)
> or should not
> have its own BSP ?
In an ideal world, supporting a simulator would not be much more than a
script, being used to convert a real-world executable into an "image",
similar to converting "*.exe"'s into download images for real targets
(make-exe in *cfg).
Unfortunately, implementing this would touch other, general, still
unsolved problems in RTEMS and is hardly applicable at all.
Ralf